Opinion issued December 23, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

———————————

NO. 01-19-00971-CV

———————————

PATRIOT CONTRACTING, LLC AND TRAVELERS CASUALTY & 

SURETY CO. OF AMERICA, Appellants

V.

SHELTER PRODUCTS, INC. AND KANCOR COMPANIES, LLC,

Appellees

On Appeal from the 133rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2014-58350

O P I N I O N

Appellants, Patriot Contracting, LLC (“Patriot”) and Travelers Casualty and 

Surety Company of America (“Travelers”), challenge the trial court’s judgment, 

entered after a jury trial, in favor of appellees, Shelter Products, Inc. (“Shelter”) and 
2

Kancor Companies, LLC (“Kancor”), in Shelter’s suit against Patriot, Travelers, and 

Kancor for breach of contract, suit on account, quantum meruit, promissory estoppel, 

unjust enrichment, violations of the Texas Construction Trust Fund Act1and the 

Texas Public Prompt Pay Act,2“[c]laim against [p]ayment [b]ond,” and judicial 

foreclosure of a mechanic’s and materialman’s lien and in Kancor’s suit against 

Patriot and Travelers for breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, 

promissory estoppel, a declaratory judgment, violations of the Texas Construction 

Trust Act, the Texas Public Prompt Pay Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 2251, 

and Texas Property Code Chapter 28, “[c]laim [a]gainst [p]ayment [b]ond,” and 

judicial foreclosure of a mechanic’s and materialman’s lien. In ten issues, Patriot 

and Travelers contend that the trial court erred in entering judgment against them, 

Kancor and Shelter had an invalid Mary Carter agreement, the evidence was 

insufficient to support the jury’s verdict, the trial court erred in instructing the jury, 

Kancor engaged in improper jury argument, the trial court erred in granting Shelter 

a directed verdict on its claim for judicial foreclosure of a mechanic’s and 

materialman’s lien, the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees and pre-judgment 

interest, and the trial court erred in granting Kancor a declaratory judgment. 

We affirm.

1 See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. §§ 162.001–.033.

2 See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 2251.001–.055.
3

Background

In its third amended petition, Shelter, a lumber, plywood, and materials 

distributor, alleged that it sold and delivered $213,679.29 worth of materials to 

Kancor which were used for “the construction of improvements for the real property 

known as Temenos Place II Apartments” (the “Temenos project”), a four-story 

apartment building for low-income residents funded by the City of Houston, Harris 

County, Texas and others. According to Shelter, it “furnished the [m]aterials to 

Kancor, a subcontractor on the [Temenos] [p]roject,” which gave “the [m]aterials to 

Patriot, the [p]roject’s general contractor” for use on the Temenos project. And, 

pursuant to the Texas Public Prompt Pay Act,3 Travelers issued a bond for the 

Temenos project “to guarantee payment to subcontractors and suppliers who 

furnished labor or materials for the [p]roject.” Shelter alleged that $213,679.29 

“remain[ed] due and owing” for the materials it furnished for the Temenos project. 

Shelter sought to “enforce[e] payment of that sum by recovery on the [b]ond” or, “if 

there [wa]s no valid bond,” “by foreclosure of a lien upon the land and 

improvements.”

Shelter brought claims against Kancor for breach of contract, suit on account, 

quantum meruit, and promissory estoppel. Shelter brought a claim against Kancor 

3 See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 2251.001–.055.
4

and Patriot for unjust enrichment, alleging that Kancor and Patriot “acquired a 

benefit from receiving the [m]aterials from [Shelter] and using the [m]aterials on the 

[Temenos] [p]roject,” at Shelter’s expense. And Shelter brought a claim against 

Kancor and Patriot for violations of the Texas Construction Trust Fund Act,4alleging 

that when “Kancor and Patriot received partial payment on the . . . [Temenos] 

[p]roject, they did not pay [Shelter], although Kancor and Patriot knew that the bills 

were due and owing,” and “Kancor and Patriot . . . misappropriated the funds they 

received on the [Temenos] [p]roject” to Shelter’s detriment. Shelter also brought a 

claim against Patriot and Kancor for violations of the Texas Public Prompt Pay Act5

because they had failed to pay the balance due to Shelter.6

Additionally, Shelter brought a claim against the payment bond issued by 

Travelers to release the mechanic’s and materialman’s lien that Shelter had filed 

against the Temenos project “for the purpose of enforcing payment” of the 

$213,679.29 owed to Shelter.” And alternatively, Shelter sought judicial foreclosure 

of its mechanic’s and materialman’s lien on the Temenos project. Shelter requested 

damages in the amount of $213,670.29, attorney’s fees under Texas Civil Practice 

4 See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. §§ 162.001–.033.

5 See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 2251.001–.055.

6

 Shelter also sued Temenos Place II, LLC (“Temenos”), Ori Kantor, Kancor’s 

principal, Joseph Collins, Kancor’s Senior Operations Manager, and Sam Harrison, 

Patriot’s project manager for the Temenos project. The claims against these 

defendants were dismissed, and they are not parties to the appeal.
5

and Remedies Code Chapter 38,7the Texas Construction Trust Fund Act,8the Texas 

Public Prompt Pay Act,9“and as otherwise allowed by law or contract,” costs, and 

interest.

In response to Shelter’s petition, Kancor, Patriot, and Travelers separately 

answered, generally denying the allegations in the petition, specifically denying 

certain allegations, and asserting various defenses.

Kancor then brought cross-claims against Patriot and Travelers. In its second 

amended cross-claim, Kancor alleged that Patriot “fail[ed] to honor its contractual 

obligations to Kancor.” According to Kancor, it entered into a written contract with 

Patriot (the “Patriot-Kancor subcontract”) for Kancor “to provide certain services, 

i.e., construction framing, and certain goods, i.e., lumber and framing materials, to 

Patriot for incorporation into the” Temenos project. Kancor alleged that it 

“performed as obligated” under the Patriot-Kancor subcontract, but Patriot refused 

to pay Kancor’s “second and third payment applications” and “further refused to pay 

Kancor” for the “change order work” that it had performed. And because of Patriot’s 

failure to pay Kancor, Kancor was “forced to stop all work on the Temenos [p]roject” 

and “to file a [mechanic’s and materialman’s] lien in the amount of $251,550.00, 

7 See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 38.001–.006.

8 See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. §§ 162.001–.033.

9 See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 2251.043.
6

against the Temenos [p]roject.” After Kancor filed the lien, “Patriot retained 

Travelers and Travelers issued an indemnity bond.” Kancor submitted a claim to 

Travelers under the bond, but Travelers refused to pay.

Kancor brought cross-claims against Patriot for breach of contract, quantum 

meruit, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel. Kancor also brought a 

cross-claim against Patriot for violations of the Texas Construction Trust Fund Act,10

the Texas Public Prompt Pay Act,11 Texas Government Code Chapter 2251,12 or 

alternatively, Texas Property Code Chapter 28.13 And Kancor brought a declaratory 

judgment cross-claim against Patriot, seeking certain declarations.

As to Travelers, Kancor brought a cross-claim for “[c]laim [a]gainst 

[p]ayment [b]ond,” “demanding that Travelers honor its obligation under the 

[payment] bond to pay [Kancor] for the reasonable value of its materials.” And 

alternatively, Kancor sought judicial foreclosure of its mechanic’s and 

materialman’s lien on the Temenos project. Kancor sought damages in the amount 

of $251,550.00, attorney’s fees under Texas Property Code sections 28.001 and 

162.001, Texas Government Code Chapter 2251, “and as otherwise allowed by law 

or contract,” costs, and interest.

10 See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. §§ 162.001–.033.

11 See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 2251.043.

12 See id.

13 See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. §§ 28.001–.010.
7

Patriot and Travelers separately answered Kancor’s cross-claims, generally 

denying the allegations, specifically denying certain allegations, and asserting 

defenses.

Patriot then brought cross-claims against Kancor. In its third amended 

cross-claim, Patriot alleged that it and Kancor entered into the Patriot-Kancor 

subcontract under which Kancor agreed to provide framing services and framing 

materials for the Temenos project. According to Patriot, Kancor breached the 

Patriot-Kancor subcontract by “abandon[ing]” the framing work on the Temenos 

project. Patriot brought cross-claims against Kancor for violations of the Texas 

Public Prompt Pay Act14 and Texas Construction Trust Fund Act,15 subrogation of 

rights, and breach of contract. Patriot sought to recover from Kancor damages, 

attorney’s fees, and interest.

In response to Patriot’s third amended cross-claim, Kancor answered, 

generally denying the allegations, specifically denying certain allegations, and 

asserting defenses.

At trial, Aaron Wilson, Shelter’s Vice President of Finance, testified that he 

oversees “financial aspects of the company,” including the accounting department 

and the credit department. Wilson explained that to sell lumber on credit to a 

14 See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 2251.001–.055.

15 See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. §§ 162.001–.033.
8

contractor, like Kancor, Shelter requires “a credit application and . . . a job sheet” 

(the “credit agreement”) that identify the “parties that are involved in the project” 

that “might have something to do with [Shelter’s] ability to get paid.” Related to the 

Temenos project, Shelter agreed to sell $420,955.00 in lumber to Kancor. On that 

project, Kancor was Shelter’s customer, Patriot was the general contractor, and 

Temenos was the Temenos project’s owner.

According to Wilson, Patriot signed a joint check agreement with Kancor and 

Shelter under which Patriot agreed to “make a good faith attempt” to “issue checks 

jointly made to [Kancor] and [Shelter] in accordance with progress payments made 

under the [Patriot-Kancor subcontract].” Wilson stated that the joint check 

agreement “[wa]s a way of ensuring that Shelter [was] paid for the material[s]” it 

supplied. Patriot made one payment with a joint check, which was for $82,450.00. 

Shelter gave Kancor credit for that payment. The $213,679.29 that Shelter sought 

in its suit was the balance that remained unpaid by Kancor after all the payments and 

credits were allowed.

Wilson explained that Shelter had a practice of invoicing customers monthly 

for the materials that it shipped to them. The invoices were for materials shipped 

between the eleventh of the prior month and the tenth of the current month and they 

stated that full payment was due by the twentieth of the following month. Shelter’s 

credit agreement with Kancor followed this invoicing practice. Thus, Kancor was 
9

not required to pay Shelter within seven days of receipt of payment, as Patriot was 

required to pay Kancor under the Patriot-Kancor subcontract.

Wilson also testified about Shelter’s “aging report” for the materials it 

supplied to Kancor for the Temenos project, a copy of which was admitted into 

evidence at trial. That report showed the amount owed according to each invoice, 

the date the invoice was issued, and the date payment was due on the invoice. The 

report showed a total unpaid balance of $213,679.29, which was owed to Shelter by 

Kancor.

Wilson further explained that to collect on an overdue invoice, Shelter’s credit 

department would first make a telephone call to the customer. If the call did not 

result in payment, Shelter would send mechanic’s and materialman’s lien notices to 

the parties identified in the credit agreement.

According to Wilson, Shelter sent such a notice to Patriot on June 11, 2014, 

stating that Kancor had not paid Shelter’s invoices for materials used in the Temenos 

project. A “copy of the [June 11, 2014 lien] notice was also sent to [Temenos] and 

to [Kancor].” Shelter used a United Parcel Service tracking number to confirm that 

that the lien notices were received. Shelter sent another lien notice to Patriot on July 

11, 2014, which was signed for by the recipient on July 14, 2014. And Shelter sent 

a third lien notice on August 20, 2014. The third lien notice stated that the amount 

owed to Shelter was $213,679.29, which was the same amount owed at time of trial. 
10

Further, on September 8, 2014, Shelter sent lien notices to Temenos, Patriot, 

Travelers, and Kancor informing them that Shelter was owed $213,679.29 and 

would file a mechanic’s and materialman’s lien. On September 15, 2014, Shelter 

filed its “Affidavit Claiming Mechanic’s and Materialman’s Lien” with the Harris 

County District Clerk for recording in the real property records, and Shelter 

forwarded notice of that filing to Temenos, Patriot, Travelers, and Kancor.

Karen Vilhauer, a former credit specialist with Shelter, testified that her duties 

while employed by Shelter included “collections and sending out different lien 

release notices and notice[s] of non[-]payment,” and she acknowledged that she had 

sent the lien notices on the amount owed to Shelter by Kancor on the Temenos 

project.

An excerpt from the deposition of Linda Green, Patriot’s bookkeeper, was 

admitted into evidence at trial. In her deposition, Green testified that she received 

lien notices from Shelter in June, July, and August 2014. And in her testimony at 

trial, Green explained that Patriot paid Kancor “outside the [joint check] agreement” 

for the first two checks because she had not timely checked her voicemail messages 

and thus did not know that Kancor, Patriot, and Shelter had a joint check agreement 

until after the first two checks had been sent.

Jonathan LaFleur, Shelter’s lumber trader, testified that Kancor agreed to pay 

Shelter $420,955.00 for the lumber that it needed for the Temenos project, but 
11

Shelter did not supply all the lumber that Kancor had ordered because Kancor “was 

removed from the [Temenos project] job site” and Shelter was “not allowed to 

continue servicing the job.” LaFleur explained that he acted as the “middleman” in 

having the joint check agreement between Patriot, Kancor, and Shelter signed, and 

he forwarded a copy of the signed agreement to Shelter’s credit department. He 

stated that “[t]he purpose of [the] joint check agreement” was to ensure payment 

from Patriot to Shelter, “the material supplier,” and to Kancor, “the framer.” 

LaFleur also explained that before Shelter became Kancor’s supplier on the 

Temenos project, LaFleur was in contact with Jeff Jefferson, Patriot’s Chief 

Executive Officer, about the project. Jefferson told LaFleur that Patriot had certain 

issues with the Temenos project budget based on the existing design plans. From 

discussions with Jefferson, LaFleur understood that “the lumber package” proposed 

for the Temenos project “was about $135,000[.00] too expensive.” LaFleur and 

Jefferson “discuss[ed] options of how to bring the lumber package back 

in[to] . . . budget.” These discussions included proposed design changes that would 

reduce the total cost of the lumber package. According to LaFleur, the proposed 

design changes included lowering the height of the first floor from eighteen feet to 

nine feet, which would require the framer to “put a band around each room and then 

place joists to create [the] ceiling.” The proposed design changes also called for 

“removal of the double walls” that were in the original plans, which would result in 
12

further savings. Another proposed design change “was to use trusses instead of 

[two-inch by twelve-inch lumber] for the floor joists.” 

Based on his discussions with Jefferson, LaFleur prepared a new materials list

consistent with the proposed design changes. Shelter designed and fabricated the 

trusses for use in the Temenos project “with the proposed changes in mind.” LaFleur

had understood that Jefferson would have the plans altered to reflect the proposed 

design changes and to meet the requirements of the new materials list.

LaFleur explained that Kancor played no role in developing the proposed 

design changes that LaFleur discussed with Jefferson. After Shelter started shipping 

materials to Kancor using the new materials list, LaFleur visited the Temenos project 

job site. He looked at the plans that Patriot had given to Kancor and realized that 

Kancor was working from the original construction plans for the Temenos project, 

which did not contain any of the changes that LaFleur had recommended and that 

Jefferson had said would be incorporated.

According to LaFleur, the variance between the lumber that Shelter had 

supplied, which was based on the new materials list he had prepared, and the 

building being framed, which was based on the original plans, very quickly caused 

a lumber shortage on the Temenos project. When the shortage occurred, Kancor and 

Patriot began to have heated “back and forth” discussions because Jefferson, “who

[had] directed all these changes, was staying on the sidelines, not saying anything.” 
13

On June 27, 2014, LaFleur sent an email to Kenneth “Sam” Harrison, Patriot’s 

project manager for the Temenos project, Ori Kantor, Kancor’s President, Collins,

Kancor’s Senior Operations Manager, and Jefferson to try to prompt “Jefferson to 

explain to everybody, yes, these changes [were] what [they were] doing.” LaFleur 

stated in the email that Harrison had directed Kancor to frame the building for the 

Temenos project according to the original plans, which, due to the design changes, 

had become “worthless documents,” and that Patriot needed to incorporate the 

design changes into the plans it provided to Kancor. And LaFleur noted that “Kancor 

had no control over the [plans] or the lumber list that Shelter was provided.” Thus, 

Kancor was left to “build[] a building without the right . . . materials” or “the right 

budget numbers,” which was causing “lots of difficult[ies]” with the Temenos 

project.

LaFleur stated that in early July 2014, when the $82,450.00 joint check from 

Patriot was “in [the] possession” of Shelter, Shelter delivered the remaining floor 

trusses to the Temenos project job site. LaFleur visited the job site again shortly 

before Kancor was removed from the Temenos project. At that time, Kancor had 

completed about sixty percent of the framing: it had framed the first and second 

floors and was “setting the sub floor on top for the third” floor.

An excerpt from the deposition of Harrison was admitted into evidence at trial. 

In his deposition, Harrison testified that, as Patriot’s project manager for the 
14

Temenos project, he was responsible for gathering payment applications from the 

various subcontractors and incorporating them into Patriot’s payment applications 

to Temenos for the project. He also “schedul[ed] the [work on the Temenos project]” 

and “supervis[ed] the . . . subcontractors that [were] contracted to [Patriot].”

According to Harrison, Collins, Kancor’s Senior Operations Manager, asked 

him for the strapping specifications16 in mid-July 2014 because Kancor needed them 

to proceed with the framing. Harrison acknowledged that Kancor could not have 

proceeded with its work on the Temenos project without the strapping specifications. 

But Patriot did not receive the strapping specifications based on the design changes 

until September 11, 2014, almost two months after Patriot removed Kancor from the 

project. Yet, in his testimony at trial, Harrison stated that he told Collins that Kancor 

was responsible for providing the strapping for the project. Harrison also admitted 

in his deposition that even though Harrison told Temenos, the Temenos project 

owner, that Kancor was removed from the job for non-payment, Patriot had actually 

removed Kancor from the project because Patriot did not receive a timely answer to 

the City of Houston inspector’s demands for the strapping specifications.

Harrison further explained that he understood that the Patriot-Kancor 

subcontract required Patriot to pay Kancor within seven days of Patriot’s receipt of 

16 LaFleur testified that “[s]trapping holds the floor above to the floor below and 

overlaps . . . the cavity.”
15

payment from Temenos. In Patriot’s fifth payment application, Harrison asked 

Temenos to reimburse Patriot based in part on Kancor’s second payment application, 

in which Patriot certified that Kancor’s payroll was in compliance and should be 

paid. Harrison accepted the money from Temenos for Kancor’s payroll. But Patriot 

did not pay Kancor in full for the labor and materials it supplied to the Temenos 

project. Harrison received an email from Collins on July 8, 2014 in which Collins 

notified him that Kancor still had not “received full payment from April” and that 

was why Kancor was not working on the project. By the time Collins sent the July 

8, 2014 email, he had been “complaining for at least two weeks about not receiving 

payment from Patriot” for work performed by Kancor in April, and he had warned 

Patriot that Kancor would stop work unless it received payment. Yet Patriot did not 

pay Kancor even though Patriot had received payment from Temenos, and under the 

Patriot-Kancor subcontract, Patriot was supposed to pay within a certain amount of 

time. And Harrison was aware there was a bill due and owing to Kancor for its labor 

and materials in July 2014.

An excerpt from the deposition of George Johnson, the project manager for 

Temenos, was admitted into evidence at trial. In his deposition, Johnson testified 

about his dealings with Patriot during the Temenos project’s construction. Either 

Steve Friedman, Patriot’s owner, or Harrison would “threaten to pull off” the job 

“once every two weeks” for “a myriad of reasons,” “[a]ny time they [we]re unhappy 
16

about anything.” Johnson would not describe the relationship he had with Patriot as 

a “working relationship.” Friedman “would typically call” Johnson on his cellular 

telephone and “curse [Johnson] out until [Johnson] hung up.”

Johnson also explained that Harrison had certified to Johnson that Patriot had 

paid its subcontractors for all the work for which Patriot had previously billed

Temenos. Temenos paid Patriot in full on June 24, 2014 for the work documented 

on Kancor’s first payment application. And with a check dated July 15, 2014, 

Temenos paid Patriot in full for the framing goods and services documented in 

Kancor’s second payment application to Patriot, which was incorporated into 

Patriot’s fifth payment application to Temenos. If Patriot did not pay Kancor for the 

work under Kancor’s second payment application, then Harrison falsely certified 

that it had. Johnson received a July 14, 2014 email from Harrison informing him 

that Patriot was trying to convince Kancor to continue working on the Temenos 

project, but that Kancor was not willing to continue working on the project “due to 

non[-]payment.” A week later, Johnson received another email from Harrison 

stating that “the issues [that Patriot] ha[d] with Kancor ha[d] already been disclosed, 

non[-]payment and safety issues relating to the strapping [specifications].” But 

neither of Harrison’s emails informed Johnson that Patriot was not going to pay 

Kancor’s second payment application, for which Temenos had already paid Patriot.
17

Collins, Kancor’s Senior Operations Manager, testified that he worked with 

Kantor, Jefferson, and LaFleur to come to an agreement to frame the Temenos 

project. Kancor was “supposed to receive $747,350[.00]” under the Patriot-Kancor 

subcontract, but instead it received “around 250,000[.00].” Kancor completed 

“about half” of the Temenos project. Under the Patriot-Kancor subcontract, when 

Patriot “receive[d] the payment” from Temenos, it “ha[d] to [pay] Kancor within 

[seven] days of receipt of that” payment. According to Collins, that provision was 

important, because without “proper cash flow on a project you can’t pay the labor, 

you can’t pay the materials, and the project will stumble.” Patriot did not honor that

provision. It “paid [Kancor] extremely late and . . . and never in full.” Shortly 

before Patriot removed Kancor from the Temenos project, Patriot “had asked 

[Kancor] to deliver another set of trusses and said” that when “the trusses were 

delivered, [Patriot] would make [Kancor] whole for the work [it had] done.” Shelter 

provided the trusses, but payment in full “didn’t happen.” 

Collins also testified that the Patriot-Kancor subcontract stated that “if there 

[wa]s an[] improper or wrongful termination then it w[ould] be converted into a 

termination under paragraph 8.3,” which “essentially says that the contractor ha[d]

to pay the subcontractor for the reasonable value of the subcontractor’s work in place 

at the date of the termination.” The reasonable value of the work and materials 

provided by Kancor was “[sixty], [seventy] percent of the contract value.” 
18

Collins further explained that “a joint check agreement is a pretty standard 

practice in this type of work.” A joint check agreement “put[s] the liability of 

payment on the general contractor.” At the end of each pay period, “the general 

contractor is supposed to call the supplier” and find out what invoices it has due. 

Then, the general contractor is supposed to take the “value [of] those invoices, 

subtract it from the subcontractor’s pay[ment] app[lication], write a joint check 

naming the supplier and the subcontractor on [the] check, [and] send it to the 

subcontractor for endorsement,” and “the subcontractor then sends [the check] to the 

supplier.” Patriot “didn’t do the processing” that Collins described; it “only sent one 

joint check” for $82,450.00, which was “definitely” less than the amount that Shelter 

was owed. Patriot had previously sent Kancor two other checks, which were both 

“applied to [Kancor’s] first [payment] application.” Kancor was owed $280,500.00 

under its first payment application. Patriot paid Kancor all but the retainage (ten 

percent of that amount, or $28,050.00) that it was permitted to withhold temporarily 

under the Patriot-Kancor subcontract.17 But Kancor “never paid” Shelter the full 

amount it was owed from the first payment application.

According to Collins, on June 24, 2014, Temenos paid Patriot in full for the 

work documented in Kancor’s first payment application. But even though the 

17 See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. §§ 53.101–.105 (requiring owner to retain ten percent 

of “the contract price of the work” or ten percent of “the value of the work 

performed” for thirty days).
19

Patriot-Kancor subcontract required Patriot to pay Kancor within seven days of 

Patriot’s receipt of payment from Temenos, Patriot did not pay Kancor until July 8, 

2014. Collins considered Patriot’s failure to pay Kancor within seven days of its 

receipt of payment from Temenos to be a breach of the Patriot-Kancor subcontract. 

And after the July 8, 2014 payment, Patriot made no further payments to Kancor.

Kancor suspended work on the Temenos project in July 2014 because Patriot 

had not provided Kancor with construction plans incorporating the design changes 

that Kancor needed to continue and had not paid Kancor. On July 14, 2014, Collins 

sent an email to Jefferson and Friedman informing them that he was visiting 

Shelter’s office in Dallas, Texas to get the invoices for all the materials onsite at the 

Temenos project and then provide them to Patriot so that Shelter could be paid for 

those materials. He also asked about “the status of the design [plans]” that Kancor 

needed “to proceed.” Collins told Jefferson and Friedman that Kancor had 

completed all the work it could do on the Temenos project up to that point. Its “crew 

[wa]s on standby waiting,” and work was “at a standstill” until Patriot gave Kancor 

the updated design plans. Collins told Harrison that, under the circumstances, 

Kancor was authorized to stop work on the Temenos project, and it would return to 

work if Patriot paid Kancor and gave it the design plans it needed.

On July 15, 2014, Patriot received payment from Temenos on Patriot’s fifth 

payment application, which included the funds documented in Kancor’s second 
20

payment application. On July 21, 2014, one day before Patriot was required to pay 

Kancor those funds under the Patriot-Kancor subcontract, Patriot sent Kancor a letter 

terminating it from the Temenos project.

Collins explained that Kancor did not pay Shelter for the Temenos project 

materials because Patriot did not pay Kancor. Shelter sought to recover $213,000.00 

from Patriot. The difference between the amount that Shelter sought and the amount 

that Kancor sought was the amount of retainage Patriot owed Kancor from Kancor’s 

first payment application. So, the amount Kancor sought to recover from Patriot 

was the money that Kancor owed Shelter plus the retainage. 

Kancor made a demand on Patriot for the amount due. Kancor also asked 

Travelers to pay that amount. Collins executed Kancor’s mechanic’s and 

materialman’s lien affidavit and claim. Patriot and Travelers were sent notices of 

the mechanic’s and materialman’s lien, and Kancor authorized the filing of the lien. 

Kantor, Kancor’s President, testified that while Kancor was working on the 

Temenos project, Collins told him that Patriot was not paying Kancor pursuant to 

the Patriot-Kancor subcontract and not providing “structural documents in a timely 

manner,” including “truss engineering and designs,” and that those problems were 

causing Kancor “a lot of stress on th[e] [Temenos] project.” Kancor received about 

$252,000.00 for its work on the Temenos project, which was about one-third of the 
21

Patriot-Kancor subcontract price, even though Kancor had completed about sixty 

percent of the framing work for the Temenos project.

Friedman, Patriot’s President, testified that Patriot hired Kancor to do the 

framing work on the Temenos project but Kancor had “walked off the job.” 

Friedman received a couple of telephone calls from Kantor while Kancor was still 

working on the Temenos project. Kantor told him that Kancor would not staff the 

job because it had not been paid. In early June 2014, Friedman paid Kancor “a 

hundred thousand dollars out of [Patriot’s] money, before [Patriot] got paid, to keep 

the job going, because the [Temenos project] owner needed the building.” And later, 

in June 2014, Friedman “gave” Kancor $70,000.00 more “to try to get [Kancor] to 

come back to the [Temenos project].” Friedman had assumed that Kancor would 

pay Shelter, but when he found out in July 2014 that Kancor had not paid Shelter, 

he “made a joint check to [Shelter] and to Kancor.”

When Kancor did not return to the Temenos project, Friedman “terminate[d] 

[it], because [Patriot] had to get [the Temenos project] built.” Patriot had to hire 

other workers to finish framing the building for the project. Those workers used the 

strapping specifications provided by the engineer, and “the City [of Houston] 

approved the work.”

On cross-examination, Friedman acknowledged that he sent Kantor a 

September 2016 email in which he called Kantor “a trash mouth thug” and a 
22

“worthless piece of shit” and warned Kantor that his “big, dumb, nasty thug mouth 

w[ould] not carry the day at trial.” 

At the close of the evidence, Shelter and Kancor moved for directed verdicts 

that the mechanic’s and materialman’s liens they filed substantially complied with 

the statutory requirements of the Texas Property Code. The trial court granted 

Shelter and Kancor directed verdicts in their favor, finding that their mechanic’s and 

materialman’s liens complied with the statutory requirements of the Texas Property 

Code as a matter of law and their liens were “valid.” The trial court also directed a 

verdict against Patriot on its claim against Kancor for violations of the Texas 

Construction Trust Fund Act.

Shelter and Kancor also entered into two agreements about Shelter’s claims 

against Kancor. In the first, a jointly filed “Agreed Stipulation of Facts and Law” 

(the “Agreed Stipulation”), entered before trial, Shelter and Kancor agreed that the 

Patriot-Kancor subcontract “describe[d] the scope of work for the Temenos 

Project, . . . part of which was subcontracted to Shelter whereby Shelter furnished 

materials for incorporation into the Temenos Project.” Shelter provided materials 

and “issued invoices totaling $309,799.69, of which $213,679.29 [wa]s the 

liquidated remaining unpaid principal amount . . . .” Kancor and Shelter also 

stipulated to the three payments that they had received from Patriot, namely, the 

$100,000.00 and $70,000.00 checks issued by Patriot to Kancor and the $82,450.00 
23

joint check issued by Patriot to Kancor and Shelter, all for payment of Kancor’s first 

payment application. And they stipulated that “Kancor submitted two additional 

payment applications to Patriot,” which included the labor provided by Kancor and 

the materials provided by Shelter, but Patriot refused to pay the two additional 

payment applications, forcing Kancor to stop work on the Temenos project.

As to Kancor’s and Shelter’s “[c]laim[s] against [p]ayment [b]ond” against 

Travelers, Kancor and Shelter stipulated that they mailed timely notice of their 

mechanic’s and materialman’s “lien and bond claim[s]” on the Temenos project “to 

the proper parties” and thereafter, timely recorded their mechanic’s and 

materialman’s lien affidavits and “gave timely notice thereof” to the proper parties.18 

The same day that they filed the Agreed Stipulation, Shelter amended its petition to 

state that Kancor and Shelter

entered into an Agreed Stipulation whereby certain rights of Kancor 

were assigned to Shelter so that Shelter [could] prosecute those certain 

claims, including Prompt Pay Interest and attorney’s fees under Chapter 

28 of the Texas Property Code and Trust Fund under Chapter 162 of 

the Texas Property Code. The [Agreed] Stipulation [was] filed with the 

[trial] [c]ourt and should be enforced by the [c]ourt making presentation 

of questions of law and fact more simple.[19]

18 The trial court approved the Agreed Stipulation on August 4, 2016. 

19 This language is included in Shelter’s third amended petition—its live pleading at 

the time of trial.
24

Shortly before the trial court held its jury-charge conference, Shelter and 

Kancor filed a Rule 11 agreement20 with the trial court, stating that “[Shelter] and 

[Kancor] agree[d] that in exchange for Kancor waiving any objection to Shelter’s 

proposed jury [charge] questions 1–3, . . . Shelter w[ould] not seek to reduce the 

jury’s verdict on such questions to judgment against Kancor (objective is to use to 

obtain recovery against bonds).” During the trial court’s jury-charge conference, 

Kancor’s counsel explained that Kancor and Shelter “ha[d] an agreement and an 

understanding that . . . [Shelter] need[ed] a factual finding from th[e] jury on the[]

three questions . . . to perfect . . . a judgment in [Shelter’s] favor against [Travelers]” 

under the payment bond applicable to Kancor’s mechanic’s and materialman’s lien. 

Further, “[Shelter] need[ed] to be able to show [Travelers] that [t]here was a jury 

finding showing the underlying debt,” so Kancor and Shelter had “entered into an 

agreement” to “waive any objection to those three [jury] questions.”

As to Kancor’s liability to Shelter, the jury found that Kancor agreed to pay 

Shelter for the materials provided by Shelter for the Temenos project but Kancor 

failed to do so and $213,679.29 would reasonably compensate Shelter for the 

materials furnished, but for which it was not paid. As to Patriot’s liability to Kancor 

and Shelter, the jury found that Kancor furnished Patriot “labor and materials” for 

20 See TEX. R. CIV. P. 11.
25

the Temenos project and that Kancor did not materially breach the Patriot-Kancor 

subcontract but Patriot did materially breach the Patriot-Kancor subcontract. And 

the jury found that $251.659.79 would reasonably compensate Kancor for damages 

resulting from Patriot’s breach of the Patriot-Kancor subcontract. 

The jury further found that Patriot failed to remit full payment for the “labor 

and materials” recorded on Kancor’s first payment application “within seven (7) 

days of receipt, i.e., prior to July 1, 2015.” And it found that Patriot also failed to 

remit full payment for the “labor and materials” recorded on Kancor’s second 

payment application “within seven (7) days of receipt, i.e., prior to July 22, 2015,” 

and it “failed to remit funds due and owing” under Kancor’s second and third 

payment applications. 

As to attorney’s fees, the jury found that $230,268.59 was the amount of 

reasonable and necessary fees for Shelter’s attorney through trial and that 

$55,000.00 was the amount of reasonable and necessary fees for Kancor’s attorney 

through trial. It also found that Kancor was entitled to an additional $10,000.00 in 

attorney’s fees to be incurred post-trial, and the jury made findings for attorney’s 

fees related to Kancor’s and Shelter’s appellate representation if Patriot filed an 

unsuccessful appeal. 

Consistent with the jury’s verdict, the trial court, in its judgment, ordered 

that Shelter “have and recover judgment” “as a pass-through with [Kancor] against 
26

[Patriot,] as principal[,] and [Travelers], as surety,” on the payment bond and the 

indemnity bond, jointly and severally, for $213,679.29 “for materials sold and 

delivered on the Temenos [p]roject together with pre-judgment interest,” attorney’s 

fees of $230,268.59 under Texas Property Code section 53.156, and conditional 

appellate attorney’s fees. And the trial court ordered that Kancor “have and 

recover judgment against [Patriot] and [Travelers], jointly and severally, in the 

principal amount of [$38,000.00], being the amount of Kancor’s [mechanic’s and 

materialman’s] lien . . . less $213,679.29[,] the amount of Shelter’s [mechanic’s and 

materialman’s] lien . . . as and against the payment bond.” 

The trial court also granted Kancor a declaratory judgment, declaring, in part, 

that:

a. The [Patriot-Kancor] subcontract required [Patriot] to submit 

[Kancor’s] [p]ay[ment] [a]pplication to the [Temenos project] 

[o]wner[, Temenos,] for payment;

b. The [Patriot-Kancor] subcontract required [Patriot] to remit full 

payment for each of [Kancor]’s [p]ayment [a]pplications within 

seven (7) days of receipt of payment from [Temenos];

c. [Patriot] received full payment from [Temenos] for the labor and 

materials recorded on [Kancor’s] Pay[ment] Application No. 1 

on June 24, 2014;

d. [Patriot] failed to remit full payment for the labor and materials 

recorded on [Kancor]’s Pay[ment] Application No. 1 within 

seven (7) days of receipt, i.e., prior to July 1, 2014;
27

e. [Patriot] received full payment from [Temenos] for the labor and 

materials recorded on [Kancor’s] Pay[ment] Application No. 2 

on June 15, 2014;

f. [Patriot] failed to remit full payment for the labor and materials 

recorded on [Kancor’s] Pay[ment] Application No. 2 within 

seven (7) days of receipt, i.e., prior to July to July 22, 2014; [and]

g. [Patriot] ha[d] not remitted any funds due and owing under 

[Kancor]’s Pay[ment] Application since July 8, 2014[.]

(Emphasis omitted.) And the trial court awarded Shelter and Kancor attorney’s fees 

in the amounts found by the jury.

Validity of Agreed Stipulation and Rule 11 Agreement

In their first issue, Patriot and Travelers argue that the trial court erred in 

treating Shelter’s and Kancor’s Agreed Stipulation and Rule 11 agreement as valid 

agreements because they constituted a Mary Carter agreement prohibited by Texas 

law. And, according to Patriot and Travelers, the trial court’s purported error caused 

it to erroneously allow Shelter to present closing argument to the jury and submit 

questions to the jury for findings on Kancor’s liability to Shelter.

A Mary Carter agreement exists when a plaintiff settles with one defendant 

and goes to trial against the remaining defendant, and the settling defendant, who 

remains a party, guarantees the plaintiff a minimum payment, which may be offset 

in whole or in part by an excess judgment recovered at trial. Elbaor v. Smith, 845 

S.W.2d 240, 247 (Tex. 1992); Tex. Cap. Secs., Inc. v. Sandefer, 58 S.W.3d 760, 768

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied). That type of settlement “creates 
28

a tremendous incentive for the settling defendant to ensure that the plaintiff succeeds 

in obtaining a sizable recovery” and “motivates the defendant to assist greatly in the 

plaintiff’s presentation of the case.” Elbaor, 845 S.W.2d at 247. Mary Carter 

agreements are against public policy, and thus invalid, because they “skew the trial 

process, mislead the jury, promote unethical collusion among nominal adversaries, 

and create the likelihood that a less culpable defendant will be hit with the full 

judgment.” Id. 

When a plaintiff and a defendant enter into a Mary Carter agreement, courts 

presume that the shift in the settling defendant’s position in relation to the other 

parties will alter the way it participates at trial. Mi–Jack Prods., Inc. v. Braneff, 827 

S.W.2d 493, 499 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ). The failure to 

admit evidence of a Mary Carter agreement is reversible error because it denies the 

non-settling defendant the right to a trial by a jury that can fairly evaluate the 

evidence presented by the parties. Sandefer, 58 S.W.3d at 768. Informing the jury 

of the existence of the Mary Carter agreement is the only way to avoid a false 

impression of adversity and assure the jury is aware of the true interest of the parties. 

Id. Whether an agreement constitutes an impermissible Mary Carter agreement is 

an issue of contract interpretation, which we review de novo. See, e.g., 

Barrow-Shaver Res. Co. v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc., 590 S.W.3d 471, 479 (Tex. 

2019).
29

We first note that the Agreed Stipulation and Rule 11 agreement did not 

guarantee Kancor any payment, and there was no agreement between Shelter and 

Kancor to give Kancor a financial interest in Shelter’s recovery. See Turner v. 

Monsanto Co., 717 S.W.2d 378, 380–81 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, 

writ ref’d n.r.e.) (explaining settlement agreement is not Mary Carter agreement 

unless settling defendant receives financial interest in plaintiff’s recovery). 

Nor did the Agreed Stipulation and Rule 11 agreement result in a 

misalignment of parties. Shelter sued Kancor to recover the money it was owed 

under their credit agreement for the materials that Shelter supplied for the Temenos 

project, making them nominal adversaries. But Shelter and Kancor had a common 

understanding of their rights and obligations under their credit agreement and its 

interplay with the Patriot-Kancor subcontract. And both Shelter and Kancor had 

claims against Patriot and Travelers. 

Shelter’s and Kancor’s common interest in obtaining a recovery from Patriot 

and Travelers was made plain throughout the trial. In Kancor’s opening statement 

to the jury, its trial counsel explained that the Patriot-Kancor subcontract was 

“supposed to work with [Shelter] providing lumber. [Shelter would] provide the 

lumber to Kancor; Kancor [would] provide[] the lumber to Patriot. Patriot then 

s[old] the lumber to Temenos. Temenos [would] pay[] Patriot, Patriot [would] pay[] 

Kancor, Kancor [would] pay[] Shelter. . . . [T]hat[] [was] the way it [was] supposed 
30

to work.” And “[s]o[,] what [Kancor was] really doing in this case” was trying to 

“get [Kancor] paid” so that Shelter “c[ould] get paid.” Patriot’s trial counsel also 

emphasized the alignment between Kancor and Shelter in his opening statement, 

remarking that they were “sitting right there together and they [we]re bound 

together.”

The evidence adduced at trial was consistent with such descriptions of the 

Shelter-Kancor relationship. Collins, Kancor’s Senior Operations Manager, testified 

that Kancor did not pay Shelter because Patriot did not pay Kancor. And he 

confirmed that Kancor sought to recover from Patriot the $213,000.00 that Kancor 

owed Shelter, plus the retainage that Patriot owed Kancor from Kancor’s first 

payment application. Speaking for Shelter, LaFleur, Shelter’s lumber trader, 

testified that Kancor’s failure to pay Shelter was caused by Patriot’s failure to pay 

Kancor. The payment applications that Kancor had submitted to Patriot, which were 

admitted into evidence at trial, also showed the amount that Kancor owed to Shelter. 

In Shelter’s closing argument to the jury, Shelter’s trial counsel acknowledged 

that there was no dispute “that Kancor agreed to pay Shelter for the materials,” and 

that Kancor and its witnesses told the jury that Kancor “owe[d] the money, [Kancor]

bought the materials.” Shelter’s trial counsel also informed the jury that Shelter’s

mechanic’s and materialman’s lien was “included in [Kancor’s] claim.” And 

Kancor’s trial counsel, in his closing argument, told the jury that Kancor “ha[d] been 
31

fighting for five years to do one simple thing, get paid so [that Kancor] c[ould] pay 

Shelter. That’s what th[e] fight [wa]s about.”21

The trial court’s charge to the jury also reflected the parties’ alignment in a 

manner that was consistent with the evidence and argument presented during trial. 

Question Number 4 to the jury instructed that “Kancor’s mechanic[’]s and 

materialman’s lien in the amount of $251,500[.00] [wa]s inclusive of Shelter’s 

[mechanic’s and] materialman’s lien in the amount of $213,679.29 and [they] [we]re 

in compliance with the Texas Property Code.” The jury questions asking for 

findings on Kancor’s liability to Shelter were included in the charge not because of 

any contractual dispute between them, but because, as explained in the Rule 11 

21 Patriot and Travelers also argue that Shelter should not have been allowed to present 

closing argument to the jury because of the Agreed Stipulation and Rule 11 

agreement. But the case Patriot relies on, City of Houston v. Sam P. Wallace & Co., 

is inapposite. 585 S.W.2d 669 (Tex. 1979). There, the City of Houston (the “City”) 

was one of two plaintiffs in the suit against Sam P. Wallace and Company 

(“Wallace”). Id. at 670. The City’s individual co-plaintiff, Maurice Little, secretly 

reached a settlement with Wallace just before closing argument to the jury was 

made. Id. Little, the individual co-plaintiff, changed his position from trial by 

arguing in his closing that the City, and not Wallace, was at fault in causing the 

City’s property damages and Little’s personal injuries. Id. The Supreme Court 

condemned the decision to allow such a closing argument, remarking that Little’s 

“counsel had no business making an argument to the jury at all,” because after 

settling with Wallace, Little, the individual co-plaintiff, “had no further claim 

against anybody and no other party had any claim against him.” Id. at 672. Here, 

in contrast, Shelter continued to have claims against Patriot and Travelers even with 

the Agreed Stipulation and Rule 11 agreement in place, so it was entitled to present 

closing argument to the jury. 
32

agreement, the findings were necessary for Shelter to assert the lien rights assigned 

by Kancor against Travelers, an adverse party. 

Because the Agreed Stipulation and Rule 11 agreement did not give Kancor a 

financial interest in Shelter’s recovery and did not “create a false impression of 

adversity” between them, we conclude that the Agreed Stipulation and Rule 11 

agreement do not constitute a prohibited Mary Carter agreement.22 Thus, we hold 

that the trial court did not err in allowing Shelter to present closing argument to the 

jury and submitting questions to the jury for findings on Kancor’s liability to Shelter.

We overrule Patriot’s and Travelers’ first issue.

22 The final judgment declares that Shelter’s recovery against Patriot is “as a liquidated 

pass-through claim against” Patriot as principal and Travelers as surety. Patriot and 

Travelers assert that the Agreed Stipulation and Rule 11 agreement do not constitute 

a pass-through claim as recognized in Interstate Contracting Corp. v. City of Dallas,

135 S.W.3d 605 (Tex. 2004). In that case, the Texas Supreme Court answered in 

the affirmative a certified question from the Fifth Circuit asking whether Texas law 

recognizes a pass-through claim that allows a contractor to assert a claim on behalf 

of its subcontractor against the owner despite the lack of privity of contract between 

the subcontractor and the owner. Id. at 610, 618. The Court distinguished 

pass-through claims from “certain assignments of claims,” like Mary Carter 

agreements, “resulting in litigation between nominal adversaries that is purposely 

skewed to obtain a judgment against a common foe.” Id. at 616. Here, because we 

have concluded that the Agreed Stipulation and Rule 11 agreement did not create 

the kinds of distortions and incentives that make Mary Carter agreements invalid, 

their validity does not depend on whether they constitute a pass-through claim. 

Thus, we do not address the portion of Patriot’s and Traveler’s argument related to 

pass-through claims. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.
33

Sufficiency of the Evidence

In their second and third issues, Patriot and Travelers argue that the trial court 

erred in entering judgment on the jury’s finding that Kancor did not materially 

breach the Patriot-Kancor subcontract because the evidence conclusively proves a 

prior breach by Kancor, and they assert that the jury’s finding that Patriot did 

materially breach the Patriot-Kancor subcontract is against the great weight and 

preponderance of the evidence. 

Question Number 5 of the trial court’s charge to the jury asked:

5.a. Did Kancor materially breach the [Patriot-Kancor] 

[sub]contract?

. . . .

Answer: No[.]

5.b. Did Patriot materially breach the [Patriot-Kancor] [sub]contract?

. . . .

Answer: Yes[.]

According to Patriot and Travelers, Kancor materially breached the 

Patriot-Kancor subcontract as a matter of law “when it failed to pay Shelter” within 

seven days of receiving the $70,000.00 partial payment from Patriot.23 Patriot and 

23 The seven-day payment requirement is also statutorily imposed. Texas Property 

Code section 28.002(b) provides that 

[a] contractor who receives a payment . . . from an owner in 

connection with a contract to improve real property shall pay each of 
34

Travelers assert that Kancor breached the Patriot-Kancor subcontract because “it is 

industry standard for subs to pay their suppliers when [they are] paid by the general 

contractor.” But Patriot and Travelers do not cite to any legal authority supporting 

their assertion or identify any provision of the Patriot-Kancor subcontract which 

overrides the credit agreement between Kancor and Shelter. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.1(i).24 And that credit agreement did not have a “pay when paid” provision and 

its subcontractors the portion of the owner’s payment, including 

interest, if any, that is attributable to . . . materials suitably 

stored . . . as provided under the contract . . . to the extent of that 

subcontractor’s interest in the owner’s payment. The payment 

required by this subsection must be made not later than the seventh 

day after the date the contractor receives the owner’s payment.

TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 28.002(b).

24 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(i) requires that an appellant’s brief “contain 

a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to 

authorities and to the record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). “This is not done by merely 

uttering brief conclusory statements, unsupported by legal citations.” Tesoro 

Petroleum Corp. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., 106 S.W.3d 118, 128 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied); see also Barham v. Turner Constr. Co. of 

Tex., 803 S.W.2d 731, 740 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990, writ denied) (appellant bears 

burden of discussing his assertions of error). A failure to provide substantive 

analysis of an issue or cite appropriate authority waives a complaint on appeal. 

Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 2011, no pet.); Huey v. Huey, 200 S.W.3d 851, 854 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

2006, no pet.); Cervantes-Peterson v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 221 

S.W.3d 244, 255 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). To the extent that 

Patriot and Travelers argue that the trial court erred in entering judgment on the 

jury’s finding that Kancor did not materially breach the Patriot-Kancor subcontract 

because the evidence conclusively proves that Kancor “failed to pay Shelter” within 

seven days of receiving payment from Patriot, we conclude that argument is waived 

due to inadequate briefing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1.
35

thus did not require Kancor to pay Shelter within seven days of receiving payment 

from Patriot.

As to Patriot’s challenge to the jury’s finding that it materially breached the 

Patriot-Kancor subcontract, a complaint that a jury finding is “against the great 

weight and preponderance of the evidence” is “a complaint about factual 

sufficiency.” Pitts & Collard, L.L.P. v. Schechter, 369 S.W.3d 301, 322 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.); see Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 

240, 242 (Tex. 2001). When appellants attack the factual sufficiency of an adverse 

finding on an issue on which they did not have the burden of proof, they must 

demonstrate that the adverse finding is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of 

the evidence as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 

175, 176 (Tex. 1986). In conducting a factual-sufficiency review, we examine, 

consider, and weigh all the evidence in a neutral light and will reverse only if the 

evidence supporting the finding is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the 

evidence as to make the judgment clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. Dow Chem. 

Co., 46 S.W.3d at 242. The jury, as the fact finder, is the sole judge of the witnesses’

credibility and may choose to believe one witness over another; a reviewing court 

may not impose its own opinion to the contrary. See Zenner v. Lone Star Striping & 

Paving L.L.C., 371 S.W.3d 311, 314 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. 

denied).
36

The Patriot-Kancor subcontract expressly required Patriot to remit payment 

to Kancor within seven days of Patriot’s receipt of payment from Temenos. The 

evidence at trial showed that Patriot received payment from Temenos that included 

funds owed under Kancor’s first payment application on June 24, 2014, but Patriot 

did not pay Kancor the funds owed under that application until July 8, 2014, seven 

days after it was due under the Patriot-Kancor subcontract. And Patriot wholly failed 

to pay Kancor the funds it received from Temenos for Kancor’s second and third 

payment applications. Patriot’s project manager for the Temenos project, Harrison, 

acknowledged, in his deposition testimony, which was admitted into evidence at 

trial, that, based on emails he had received from Collins, he knew that there was “a 

bill due and owing to Kancor for its labor and materials” in early July 2014.

Because the jury’s finding that Patriot breached the Patriot-Kancor 

subcontract is not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, we hold 

that the evidence is factually sufficient to support the jury’s answer to Question 

Number 5.

We overrule Patriot’s and Travelers’ second and third issues.

Improper Argument

In their fourth issue, Patriot and Travelers argue that Kancor’s trial counsel 

engaged in improper jury argument because counsel’s cross-examination of 

Friedman, Patriot’s President, contained statements that were “highly prejudicial” 
37

and counsel’s “language and questions influenced the jury to find against [Patriot 

and Travelers].” Patriot and Travelers assert that the improper jury argument 

constituted an “incurable error[] that ma[d]e mistrial the only appropriate remedy.”

The portion of cross-examination of Friedman, about which Patriot and 

Travelers complain, is, as follows:

[Kancor’s counsel:] Mr. Friedman, you’re kind of a difficult 

customer, aren’t you?

[Friedman:] No.

[Kancor’s counsel:] You have been described in this case as a 

bully, right?

[Friedman:] Well, now let me answer that. I—

[Kancor’s counsel:] I didn’t ask you whether you thought you 

were a bully, I said—

[Friedman:] —that was one man’s opinion—

. . . .

[Kancor’s counsel:] The question on the table is this, sir: You 

have been described in this case as acting like 

a bully, right?

[Friedman:] I—I guess I heard that, yes.

[Kancor’s counsel:] You—in this case you have heard testimony 

where you threatened, you being [Patriot]—

[Friedman:] Uh-huh.

[Kancor’s counsel:] —threatened to quit working on this project 

unless you got paid?
38

[Friedman:] Yes, sir.

Patriot’s and Travelers’ trial counsel then interposed an objection “to th[e]se kinds 

of questions” on the ground that the information they sought was irrelevant. 

Kancor’s trial counsel responded that “there’s no legitimate basis for a breach of 

contract lawsuit against . . . Kantor[, Kancor’s President,] or . . . Collins[, Kancor’s 

Senior Operations Manager,]” individually, and that counsel was trying to show that 

“Friedman directed his attorney to sue them as a punitive measure.” The trial court 

overruled the objection, and Kancor’s trial counsel’s cross-examination of Friedman 

continued:

[Kancor’s counsel:] You have personally insulted . . . Kantor on 

multiple occasions, right, sir?

[Friedman:] No.

. . . .

[Kancor’s counsel:] The reason you instituted this lawsuit is 

because you have a personal, or are 

exercising a personal vendetta against 

[Kantor] and [Collins], right?

[Friedman:] No.

In their appellant’s brief, Patriot and Travelers argue that they are entitled to 

reversal because this line of questioning of Friedman by Kancor’s trial counsel 

improperly influenced the jury and was “highly prejudicial.” But Patriot’s and 

Travelers’ objection at trial does not comport with their complaint on appeal. 
39

Compare TEX. R. EVID. 402 (irrelevant evidence inadmissible), with TEX. R. EVID. 

403 (relevant evidence may be inadmissible if “probative value is substantially 

outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice” or “misleading the jury”).25 To 

preserve its improper-jury-argument complaint for appeal, Patriot and Travelers 

were required to interpose the same objection in the trial court that they raise here. 

See TEX.R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Benson v. Chalk, 536 S.W.3d 886, 895–96 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) (“To preserve error for our review, an 

appellant’s complaint on appeal must comport with [its] object in the trial court.”); 

Moran v. Mem’l Point Prop. Owners Ass’n, 410 S.W.3d 397, 407 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.). Because Patriot’s and Travelers’ appellate 

complaint does not comport with the objection they raised to Kancor’s counsel’s 

cross-examination of Friedman at trial, we hold that their complaint has not been 

preserved for our review.26 See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a).

25 To the extent Patriot’s and Travelers’ argument on appeal comports with their trial 

court objection on relevance grounds, it is waived because evidence of Friedman’s 

animus toward Johnson, Collins, and Kantor was admitted at other times during the 

trial without objection. See Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897, 

907 (Tex. 2004) (“The general rule is error in the admission of testimony is deemed 

harmless and is waived if the objecting party . . . permits the same or similar 

evidence to be introduced without objection.”).

26 We also note that Patriot and Travelers failed to ask the trial court to instruct the 

jury to disregard the purportedly objectionable argument made by Kancor’s trial 

counsel. See Jones v. Rep. Waste Servs. of Tex., Ltd., 236 S.W.3d 390, 402 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied). And, even if allowing that particular 

line of questioning by Kancor’s counsel could not have been cured by instruction, 

as Patriot and Travelers assert, they were required to preserve the issue by raising it 
40

Jury Charge

In their fifth issue, Patriot and Travelers argue that the trial court erred in 

instructing the jury because the trial court failed to include their proposed jury 

instructions and question on their purported “defenses” asserted in the pleadings.

To preserve a complaint of jury-charge error, appellants must object to the 

jury charge in writing or on the record and obtain a ruling from the trial court, during 

the charge conference after the close of the evidence, but before the charge is read 

to the jury. TEX. R. CIV. P. 272; Cruz v. Andrews Restoration, Inc., 364 S.W.3d 817, 

829 (Tex. 2012). Appellants have preserved their complaint about error in the jury 

charge if they made the trial court aware of the complaint, timely and plainly, and 

obtained a ruling. Cruz, 364 S.W.3d at 829. “Our procedural rules state that a 

complaint to a jury charge is waived unless specifically included in an objection.” 

Id. (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 274; TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)); see also Carter v. Treece, 

No. 01-11-01003-CV, 2013 WL 3463681, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

July 9, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“If a party fails to lodge an objection to the jury 

charge that timely and plainly makes the trial court aware of the complaint, error is 

not preserved and the complaint is waived on appeal.”). If appellants assert that the 

in their motion for new trial, which they likewise failed to do. See TEX. R. CIV. P.

324(b)(5); Phillips v. Bramlett, 288 S.W.3d 876, 883 (Tex. 2009). For these 

reasons, Patriot and Travelers also did not preserve their improper-jury-argument 

complaint for appellate review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a).
41

trial court improperly omitted an instruction or question in the court’s charge, they 

must do more than object to preserve their complaint for appeal; appellants must 

request and tender to the trial court a substantially correct instruction or question in 

writing. TEX. R. CIV. P. 278; Yellow Cab & Baggage Co. v. Green, 277 S.W.2d 92, 

93 (Tex. 1955); Carter, 2013 WL 3463681, at *2.

Patriot and Travelers tendered their proposed jury instructions and question 

on their “defenses” and obtained rulings from the trial court on them. Those 

instructions and question involve Kancor’s conduct under its credit agreement with 

Shelter and asked whether some proportional payment was due to Shelter based on 

the partial payment that Patriot made to Kancor under the Patriot-Kancor 

subcontract.27 Patriot and Travelers summarily urge that they “complied with the 

[Texas] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 278 requirement that [their] tender be in writing,”

and that their “tender [be] in substantially correct wording.” (Internal quotations 

omitted.) But Patriot and Travelers do not explain why their requested instructions 

and question were reasonably necessary for the jury to render a proper verdict, and 

27 Patriot and Travelers asserted in their appellant’s brief that

Kancor materially breached [the credit agreement with Shelter], and that 

breach was the first material breach; that was the failure of Kancor to pay 

Shelter what was owed the supplier out of the original $170,000[.00] paid 

by Patriot to Kancor. The second material breach was that Kancor failed 

to provide Patriot a conditional release for the payment applications. The 

third material breach was when Kancor abandoned the Temenos project 

even though it had received payments in advance of its progress on the 

Temenos project.
42

Patriot’s and Travelers’ need for their submission is not apparent from the proposed 

instructions and question themselves. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 274. Further, Patriot and 

Travelers do not assert that the issues addressed in the jury instructions and question

that they tendered to the trial court were not subsumed in the broad-form questions 

that the trial court did submit to the jury on Kancor’s liability and damages owed to 

Shelter and on whether Patriot or Kancor first breached the Patriot-Kancor 

subcontract, and we conclude that they were. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 277 (“The court 

shall, whenever feasible, submit the cause upon broad-form questions.”). As a 

result, we hold that the trial court did not err in refusing to submit to the jury Patriot’s 

and Travelers’ proposed jury instructions and question.

We overrule Patriot’s and Travelers’ fifth issue.

Perfection of Liens

In their sixth and seventh issues, Patriot and Travelers argue that the trial court 

erred in granting Shelter a directed verdict on its claim for judicial foreclosure of a 

mechanic’s and materialman’s lien because Shelter’s claim fails as a matter of law.28 

28 Patriot and Travelers do not challenge the trial court’s directed verdict that Kancor 

substantially complied with the requirements for its mechanic’s and materialman’s 

lien and that Kancor assigned to Shelter its lien rights in the Agreed Stipulation, 

which was approved by the trial court. We nevertheless address this issue because 

the attorney’s-fee award to Shelter depends on the validity of Shelter’s own 

mechanic’s and materialman’s lien. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 53.156.
43

We review the trial court’s grant of directed verdict de novo. JPMorgan 

Chase Bank, N.A., v. Orca Assets G.P., L.L.C., 546 S.W.3d 648, 653 (Tex. 2018); 

City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 823 (Tex. 2005). A trial court may direct 

a verdict in favor of a plaintiff on its cause of action only when the evidence 

conclusively proves a fact that establishes the plaintiff’s right to judgment as a matter 

of law. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Fin. Rev. Servs., Inc., 29 S.W.3d 74, 77 (Tex. 

2000); Cox v. S. Garrett, L.L.C., 245 S.W.3d 574, 578 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] 2007, no pet.); see Domingo v. Skidmore, No. 07-09-0392-CV, 2011 WL 

4478385, at *4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 21, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); Kline v. 

O’Quinn, 874 S.W.2d 776, 785 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ 

denied); see also Smith v. Aqua–Flo, Inc., 23 S.W.3d 473, 476 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (directed verdict is appropriate when reasonable minds 

can draw only one conclusion from evidence). We determine whether any probative 

evidence exists to raise a fact issue on the questions presented. Collora v. Navarro, 

574 S.W.2d 65, 68 (Tex. 1978); Lemaster v. Top Level Printing Ink, Inc., 136 S.W.3d 

745, 747 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.). We disregard all contrary evidence and

inferences and give the opposing party the benefit of any reasonable inferences 

created by the evidence. See Coastal Transp. Co. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 

136 S.W.3d 227, 234 (Tex. 2004); Cox, 245 S.W.3d at 578. If we conclude that any 

conflicting evidence of probative value raises a material fact issue, then the directed 
44

verdict is improper because the issue is for the jury to resolve. Szczepanik v. First 

S. Trust Co., 883 S.W.2d 648, 649 (Tex. 1994). 

A mechanic’s or materialman’s lien is a statutory lien that attaches to real 

property to secure persons who have labored or provided material, machinery, 

fixtures, or tools to build or repair the improvements on that property. Moore v. 

Brenham Ready Mix, Inc., 463 S.W.3d 109, 118 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

2015, no pet.); see generally TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. §§ 53.001–.287. Mechanic’s 

and materialmen’s liens are protected by the Texas Constitution and are governed 

by specific statutes. See TEX. CONST. art. XVI, § 37; TEX. PROP. CODE ANN.

§§ 53.051–.055.

Texas courts liberally construe the mechanic’s and materialman’s lien statutes 

to protect laborers and materialmen. Hayek v. W. Steel Co., 478 S.W.2d 786, 795 

(Tex. 1972); Shojai v. Morrell Masonry Supply, Inc., No. 01-18-00204-CV, 2020 

WL 5552622, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 17, 2020, pet. denied) 

(mem. op.). Thus, a party that has substantially complied with the requirements for 

perfecting a lien satisfies its statutory obligations. LTF Real Estate Co. v. D & D 

Util. Supply, LLC, No. 01-11-00244-CV, 2013 WL 1183300, at *3 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 21, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.). Substantial compliance 

means compliance with the essential requirements of a statute and occurs when a 

party’s deviation from strict compliance does not seriously impede the legislative 
45

purpose of the statute. See Sorrell v. Estate of Carlton, 593 S.W.3d 167, 174 (Tex. 

2019); United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Boring & Tunneling Co. of Am., 321 S.W.3d 24, 

28 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied). 

Texas Property Code Chapter 53 sets forth the procedures a subcontractor 

must follow to perfect a mechanic’s and materialman’s lien. TEX. PROP. CODE ANN.

§§ 53.051–.055. Subsection 53.056(b) provides that a subcontractor with a lien 

claim 

must give to the original contractor written notice of the unpaid balance. 

The [subcontractor] must give the notice not later than the 15th day of 

the second month following each month in which all or part of the 

[subcontractor]’s labor was performed or material delivered. The 

[subcontractor] must give the same notice to the owner or reputed 

owner and the original contractor not later than the 15th day of the third 

month following each month in which all or part of the 

[subcontractor]’s labor was performed or material or specially 

fabricated material was delivered.

Id. § 53.056(b). The subcontractor may accomplish written notice either by 

(1) delivery of a writing in person; (2) certified mail; or (3) proving receipt of the 

notice (regardless of the method of delivery). Id. § 53.003(b), (c), (d). Delivery of 

“[a] copy of the statement or billing in the customary form” is sufficient to give 

notice of the debt. Id. § 53.056(f).

The evidence admitted at trial shows that Shelter sent four lien notices—on 

June 11, 2014, July 11, 2014, August 12, 2014, and September 8, 2014—and gave 

timely written notice to the statutorily required parties by an acceptable method. See 
46

id. § 53.003(b), (c), (d); see also id. § 53.056(f); Redland Ins. Co. v. Sw. Stainless, 

181 S.W.3d 509, 512 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (concluding mailing 

notices by first-class regular mail instead of by certified mail substantially complied 

with statute where employee testified that she placed the copies in mail on date of 

notice and that notices were not returned, and parties stipulated that two notices were 

actually received). Shelter sent the June, July, and August 2014 notices to Temenos, 

Patriot, and Kancor, and it sent the September 2014 notice to Temenos, Patriot, 

Kancor, and Travelers. The June 11, 2014 notice was hand-delivered to Patriot. 

Shelter sent the July 11, 2014 notice to Temenos by hand delivery and sent copies 

to Patriot and Kancor by first-class mail. Shelter also sent Temenos and Patriot an 

email on July 24, 2014 that contained all its unpaid invoices and a statement listing 

the unpaid invoices for materials by date and amount. Shelter hand-delivered the 

August 12, 2014 notice to Temenos and sent it by first-class mail to Patriot and 

Kancor. In her deposition testimony, admitted into evidence at trial, Green, Patriot’s 

bookkeeper, acknowledged that she received the lien notices from Shelter in June, 

July, and August 2014, and she testified that she received Shelter’s July 2014 email. 

Shelter’s fourth lien notice was sent on September 8, 2014 by certified mail 

to Temenos, Patriot, Kancor, and Travelers. Pertinent here, Texas Property Code 

section 53.205 allows a party to perfect a lien either “in the manner prescribed for 

fixing a lien under Subchapter C” or “in the manner prescribed by [Texas Property 
47

Code] [s]ection 53.206.” See id. § 53.205(a); see id. § 53.056. Shelter used the same 

method in delivering notice to Travelers that it used in delivering its prior notices to 

Temenos, Patriot, and Kancor, as permitted by section 53.205(a). See id.

§ 53.205(a)(1).

Although Patriot and Travelers complain about the differences in the amounts 

stated in Shelter’s mechanic’s and materialman’s lien notices from month to month, 

Shelter properly relied on its credit agreement with Kancor in calculating the amount 

that remained unpaid for each month’s notice, which accounts for the differences 

among the notices. And each month’s notice included the unpaid invoices and 

informed each of the recipients of the same amount that had not been paid. A 

subcontractor strictly following Texas Property Code section 53.056(b) would send 

a lien notice to the general contractor in the second month and, if no payment is 

made, the subcontractor would send the same notice to the owner in the third month. 

See id. § 53.056(b). But nothing in the statute prevents the subcontractor from 

combining two monthly notices into one and mailing notice of non-payment by the 

second month at the same time to all parties requiring notice. The purpose of 

requiring a lien affiant to give actual notice of the lien to the property owner is to 

“ensure[] that a property owner will not be ambushed by recorded liens of which [it]

is unaware.” Truss World v. ERJS, 284 S.W.3d 393, 396 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 

2009, pet. denied). The record shows that Temenos received all of Shelter’s 
48

mechanic’s and materialman’s lien notices29 and actual receipt of the lien notices by 

Patriot’s agent. We conclude Shelter substantially complied with the statutory notice 

requirements. See id.; Arias v. Brookstone, 265 S.W.3d 459, 464 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (“Because the person executing the lien 

affidavit must file the affidavit by the relatively short deadlines stated in [Texas] 

Property Code sections 53.052 and 53.056 . . . , the owner and original contractor 

can hardly claim to be hurt when they are notified in advance of the actual filing of 

the lien affidavit.”). 

Patriot and Travelers also complain that Shelter’s mechanic’s and 

materialman’s lien affidavit contained various technical deficiencies. A person 

claiming a lien must file an affidavit with the county clerk that contains: 

(1) a sworn statement of the amount of the claim;

(2) the name and last known address of the owner or reputed owner;

(3) a general statement of the kind of work done and materials 

furnished by the claimant and, for a claimant other than an original 

contractor, a statement of each month in which the work was done and 

materials furnished for which payment is requested;

(4) the name and last known address of the person by whom the 

claimant was employed or to whom the claimant furnished the materials 

or labor;

(5) the name and last known address of the original contractor;

29 The trial court took judicial notice of Temenos’s answers to Shelter’s request for 

admissions, in which Temenos admitted that it received all of Shelter’s mechanic’s 

and materialman’s lien notices.
49

(6) a description, legally sufficient for identification, of the property 

sought to be charged with the lien;

(7) the claimant’s name, mailing address, and, if different, physical 

address; and

(8) for a claimant other than an original contractor, a statement 

identifying the date each notice of the claim was sent to the owner and 

the method by which the notice was sent.

TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 53.054(a); see also id. § 53.052. Patriot and Travelers 

assert that Shelter’s affidavit contains errors including: (1) failing to state the last 

known address of the original contractor, i.e., Patriot; (2) generally stating that 

Shelter “sent notices to the reputed owner(s) by certified mail, return receipt 

requ[ested] on at least August 27, 2014,” where the notices were sent June 11, 2014, 

July 11, 2014, and August 12, 2014, and not all by certified mail; (3) reciting “State 

of Texas, County of Harris” at the beginning of the affidavit, but later stating that 

the affiant appeared before a notary public “in and for the State of Oregon,” and the 

affidavit was notarized by that notary public in Oregon; (4) stating that the debt 

incurred arose from an oral agreement rather than a written contract; (5) failing to 

state a date of delivery for the attached invoices; and (6) stating an amount due—the 

same amount that Shelter recovered at trial—which was different than the total 

amount in the attached invoices. But Patriot and Travelers do not suggest that they 

were misled or prevented from having timely notice of the mechanic’s and 

materialman’s lien by any of these technical defects, and there is no dispute that 
50

Temenos, the property owner, timely received pre-lien notice. See Mustang Tractor 

& Equip. Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 263 S.W.3d 437, 442 (Tex. App.—

Austin 2008, pet. denied). 

We conclude that the trial court properly found that Shelter’s mechanic’s and 

materialman’s lien notices and affidavit substantially complied with the statutory 

requirements. Thus, we hold that the trial court did not err in granting a directed 

verdict in favor of Shelter on its claim for judicial foreclosure of a mechanic’s and 

materialman’s lien. 

We overrule Patriot’s and Travelers’ sixth and seventh issues.

Attorney’s Fees

In their eighth issue, Patriot and Travelers argue that the trial court erred in 

awarding Kancor and Shelter their attorney’s fees under Texas Property Code 

section 53.156 because their pleadings were insufficient to support the award, they 

“failed to properly segregate their recoverable fees from their nonrecoverable fees,” 

and they failed to apply the “lodestar” analysis to show sufficient evidence of the 

reasonableness and necessity of the fees.

Generally, litigants are responsible for their own attorney’s fees unless an 

award is authorized by statute or contract. See Ashford Partners, Ltd. v. ECO Res., 

Inc., 401 S.W.3d 35, 41 (Tex. 2012); MBM Fin. Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co., 

292 S.W.3d 660, 666 (Tex. 2009). Because a trial court’s judgment must conform 
51

to the pleadings, a party seeking attorney’s fees must plead for them, specifying the 

legal standard under which the fees are sought. See Intercont’l Grp. P’ship v. KB 

Home Lone Star L.P., 295 S.W.3d 650, 659 (Tex. 2009) (holding party waived its 

right to recover attorney’s fees under contractual provision by pleading for 

attorney’s fees only under statutory provision); Peterson Grp., Inc. v. PLTQ Lotus 

Grp., L.P., 417 S.W.3d 46, 61–62 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. 

denied) (holding party could not recover attorney’s fees under contractual provision 

when it pleaded for attorney’s fees only under statutory provision).

Patriot first argues that Kancor and Shelter are not entitled to recover their 

attorney’s fees because neither expressly invoked Texas Property Code section 

53.156 as a ground for the recovery of their attorney’s fees in their pleadings. “Texas 

follows a ‘fair notice’ standard for pleading, which looks to whether the opposing 

party can ascertain from the pleading the nature and basic issues of the controversy 

and what testimony will be relevant.” Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Auld, 34 

S.W .3d 887, 896–97 (Tex. 2000); Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co. v. Ferguson-Stewart, 

339 S.W.3d 744, 748 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.). Where, as 

here, no special exceptions have been sustained, we construe pleadings liberally in 

favor of the pleading party. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., 34 S.W.3d at 897; 

Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co., 339 S.W.3d at 748. 
52

Both Kancor and Shelter pleaded claims for recovery pursuant to the payment 

bond and, alternatively, sought judicial foreclosure of their mechanic’s and 

materialman’s lien pursuant to Texas Property Code Chapter 53. And both pleaded 

for attorney’s fees as authorized by law. Those pleadings provided fair notice that 

Kancor and Shelter sought attorney’s fees under Texas Property Code section 

53.156. If a party that pleads facts which, if true, entitle it to the relief sought, the 

party need not specifically plead the applicable statute to recover attorney’s fees 

under it. Whallon v. City of Houston, 462 S.W.3d 146, 165 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied); see Mitchell v. LaFlamme, 60 S.W.3d 123, 130 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). Thus, we hold that Kancor’s and 

Shelter’s pleadings support their respective awards of attorney’s fees under Texas 

Property Code section 53.156. 

Patriot and Travelers also argue that the attorney’s-fee awards are improper 

because Kancor and Shelter failed to segregate their recoverable fees from their 

non-recoverable fees and failed to adduce sufficient evidence under the “[l]odestar 

requirement” to support the attorneys’ fees awards. (Internal quotations omitted.) 

“[I]f any attorney’s fees relate solely to a claim for which such fees are 

unrecoverable, a claimant must segregate recoverable from unrecoverable fees.” 

Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299, 313 (Tex. 2006). Whether 

attorney’s fees should be segregated is a question of law, and the extent to which 
53

certain claims can or cannot be segregated is a mixed question of law and fact. Id. 

at 312–13; CA Partners v. Spears, 274 S.W.3d 51, 81 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] 2008, pet. denied).

“Intertwined facts do not make [certain] fees recoverable; it is only when 

discrete legal services advance both a recoverable and unrecoverable claim that they 

are so intertwined that they need not be segregated.” Chapa, 212 S.W.3d at 313–

14. But where segregation is required, attorneys are not required to “keep separate 

time records when[, for instance,] they drafted the fraud, contract, or DTPA 

paragraphs of [a] petition.” Id. at 314. “[A]n opinion w[ill] . . . suffice[] stating that, 

for example, 95 percent of their drafting time would have been necessary even if 

there had been no fraud claim.” Id.; see Young v. Dimension Homes, Inc., 

No. 01-14-00331-CV, 2016 WL 4536407, at *10 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

Aug. 30, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also 7979 Airport Garage, L.L.C. v. Dollar 

Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 245 S.W.3d 488, 506 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, 

pet. denied). But if a party does not properly segregate its attorney’s fees between 

recoverable and non-recoverable claims and we determine segregation is required, 

we must reverse the fee award and remand the matter for the trial court to determine 

which fees are recoverable. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d at 314; Young, 2016 WL 4536407, 

at *10.
54

As to Patriot’s and Travelers’ complaint that Shelter and Kancor failed to 

adduce sufficient evidence under the “[l]odestar requirement” to support their 

attorney’s-fees awards, we note that the lodestar analysis applies when a party seeks 

recovery of attorney’s fees under any fee-shifting statute. Rohrmoos Venture v. 

UTSW DVA Healthcare, 578 S.W.3d 469, 496 (Tex. 2019). The lodestar method 

was developed as a “short hand version” of the factors set forth in Arthur Andersen 

& Co. v. Perry Equipment Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. 1997).30 Rohrmoos, 578 

S.W.3d at 496 (internal quotations omitted). Although the lodestar method was 

30 Those factors include:

(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the 

questions involved, and the skill required to perform the legal service 

properly;

(2) the likelihood . . . that the acceptance of the particular 

employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer;

(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal 

services;

(4) the amount involved and the results obtained;

(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the 

circumstances;

(6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the 

client;

(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers 

performing the services; and

(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent on results obtained or 

uncertainty of collection before the legal services have been rendered.

Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip. Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812, 818 (Tex. 1997) 

(alteration in original).
55

“never intended to be a separate test or method,” it is a “focused and objective 

analysis of whether the fees sought are reasonable and necessary.” Id. The 

calculation “yield[s] a base figure that reflects most Arthur Andersen factors and is 

thus presumptively reasonable.” Id. But the figure is subject to adjustment if the 

presumption is overcome by other Arthur Andersen factors not accounted for in the 

base lodestar figure. Id.

Under a lodestar analysis, the determination of what constitutes reasonable 

attorney’s fees involves two steps. Id. at 494; Iola Barker v. Hurst, 632 S.W.3d 175, 

186 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2021, no pet.). Under the first step, the fact 

finder determines the reasonable hours that counsel worked on the case and the 

reasonable hourly rate for such work. Rohrmoos, 578 S.W.3d at 498. The fact finder 

then multiplies the number of hours worked by the applicable rate. Id. There is a 

presumption that the base lodestar calculation, when supported by sufficient 

evidence, reflects the reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees. Id. at 499. The party 

seeking its attorney’s fees bears the burden of providing sufficient evidence. Id. at 

498. This includes evidence of (1) the particular services performed, (2) who 

performed those services, (3) approximately when the services were performed, 

(4) the reasonable amount of time required to perform the services, and (5) the 

reasonable hourly rate for each person performing such services. Id.
56

Contemporaneous billing records are not required to prove that the requested 

fees are reasonable. Id. at 502. However, “[g]eneral, conclusory testimony devoid 

of any real substance will not support a fee award.” Id. at 501. Generalities about 

tasks performed provide insufficient information for the fact finder to meaningfully 

review whether the tasks and hours were reasonable and necessary. El Apple I, Ltd. 

v. Olivas, 370 S.W.3d 757, 763 (Tex. 2012). There must be some evidence about 

the time spent on specific tasks to enable the fact finder to meaningfully review the 

requested fees. Long v. Griffin, 442 S.W.3d 253, 255 (Tex. 2014).

Shelter’s attorney, Ben Aderholt, testified that he had represented Shelter in 

this litigation for five years. He told the jury about the depth of his experience in 

construction law and litigation, the discovery conducted in the case, and how his law 

firm staffed the case. Aderholt explained that he had discounted the legal fees 

charged to Shelter by about $90,000.00, and that in his expert opinion, it was 

“necessary and reasonable to spend $207,120.50 in the prosecution of the case.” 

And he pointed out that that amount did not include the fourteen hours he and his 

firm spent “on the trust fund claims and the Temenos claims” that were no longer in 

the case. Aderholt testified to costs of $23,118.09, and he explained that Shelter 

incurred expenses for flights to Oregon and Florida and for the court reporter in 

taking eight depositions. The necessary and reasonable fees and expenses testified 

to by Aderholt totaled $230,268.59, the sum found by the jury. 
57

Shelter’s evidence of attorney’s fees also included documents admitted into 

evidence at trial, such as the correspondence sent by Aderholt at the beginning of 

the dispute as well as the itemized monthly invoices sent to Shelter by Aderholt and 

his law firm for legal services and expenses for the period from August 2014 through 

May 2019. And it included a summary sheet detailing a reduction of both attorney’s 

fees and expenses after amounts were segregated for claims not pursued by Shelter. 

Kancor’s attorney, Mark Counts, testified to his professional experience and 

told the jury that, as a sole practitioner, he had represented Kancor as lead counsel 

since the summer of 2014. He explained that he had “either personally rendered or 

supervised all services on the file.” He testified about his hourly billing rate and 

stated that, in computing the attorney’s fees charged in the case, he considered the 

“[t]ime and labor required; the difficulty and novelty of the questions involved; the 

likelihood that acceptance of other employment would preclude this engagement; 

the fees customarily charged in the locality; the amount involved; the time 

limitations imposed by [Kancor] or the circumstances; the nature and length of the 

professional relationship; the experience, reputation, and ability of the other 

lawyers.” The hourly rate that Counts charged in this case, which was approved by 

Kancor, “[wa]s within” or below “the range customarily charged within Harris 

County” at that time. Counts reviewed his firm’s itemized billing records, which 

were admitted into evidence at trial. He stated that he had discounted the attorney’s 
58

fees charged as he reviewed the monthly invoices to be sent to Kancor but could not 

say exactly by how much. In any event, he opined that “all the work [he] performed 

was both reasonable and necessary in rendering the services” to Kancor in the case. 

Counts further stated that the recoverable amount of Kancor’s attorney’s fees was 

$55,069.33 for the claims “asserted on affirmative relief,” out of a total amount of 

$83,437.93 in attorney’s fees expended on the case. The jury found that $55,000.00 

was a “reasonable fee for the necessary services” of Kancor’s counsel. 

The attorneys representing Shelter and Kancor each testified to their 

unsegregated attorney’s fees and their opinion as to the portion of time expended on 

claims for which fees were recoverable. And their testimony and itemized invoices 

admitted into evidence showed the legal services performed, the attorney or staff 

person who performed those services, when they were performed, and the amount 

of time required to perform them, as well as the hourly rate for each person 

performing them. The attorneys both opined as to the reasonableness and necessity 

of the attorney’s fees and expenses incurred by their clients. The itemized invoices 

and the attorneys’ testimony concerning the attorney’s fees charged, work 

performed, and the portion of the time expended on claims for which attorney’s fees 

were recoverable were some evidence in support of the awards, and we conclude 

that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees 

to Shelter and Kancor. See McMahon v. Zimmerman, 433 S.W.3d 680, 694 (Tex. 
59

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.). Accordingly, we hold that the trial court 

did not err in awarding Kancor and Shelter attorney’s fees under Texas Property 

Code section 53.156 in the amounts found by the jury. 

We overrule Patriot’s and Travelers’ eighth issue.

Pre-Judgment Interest

In their ninth issue, Patriot and Travelers argue that the trial court erred 

awarding Shelter and Kancor pre-judgment interest calculated at an eighteen percent 

rate—the rate of interest applied to late payments under the Shelter’s credit 

agreement with Kancor—because the trial court should have calculated 

pre-judgment interest based on “general Texas pre-judgment interest law.”

“Pre[-]judgment interest is compensation allowed by law as additional 

damages for lost use of money due as damages during the lapse of time between the 

accrual of the claim and the date of judgment.” Ventling v. Johnson, 466 S.W.3d 

143, 153 (Tex. 2015) (internal quotations omitted). Texas law provides two legal 

sources for pre-judgment interest: (1) general principles of equity and (2) enabling 

statutes. Johnson & Higgins of Tex., Inc. v. Kenneco Energy, Inc., 962 S.W.2d 507, 

528 (Tex. 1998). When no statute controls, an award of pre-judgment interest is 

governed by equitable principles, and the decision to award pre-judgment interest 

falls within the trial court’s discretion. Trevino v. City of Pearland, 531 S.W.3d 290, 
60

297–98 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.). We review the trial court’s 

award of pre-judgment interest for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 298.

Patriot argues that the trial court erred in calculating the pre-judgment interest 

because although “Kancor might owe interest to Shelter at [eighteen percent] per 

year,” based on the credit agreement, “Patriot and Travelers d[id] not.”31 This 

position disregards the obligations assumed in executing the payment bond. See

TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. §§ 53.171(c), 53.202. The payment bond was required to 

“be conditioned substantially that the principal and sureties w[ould] pay to the 

named obligees or to their assignees the amount that the named obligees 

would . . . be[] entitled to recover if their claims had been proved to be valid and 

enforceable liens on the property.” Id. § 53.172(6). Kancor’s claims arising from 

Patriot’s failure to pay Kancor’s second and third payment applications include both 

the principal and accrued interest Kancor owed to Shelter under the credit 

agreement, thus Patriot’s and Travelers’ argument must fail.

We hold that the trial court did not err in awarding pre-judgment interest at 

the eighteen percent rate on the amount owed to Shelter by Kancor under the credit 

agreement.

We overrule Patriot’s ninth issue. 

31 In the credit agreement, Shelter and Kancor agreed that Kancor would pay one and 

one-half percent interest per month on unpaid invoices for materials furnished for 

the Temenos project, together with costs and attorney’s fees.
61

Declaratory Judgment

In their tenth issue, Patriot and Travelers argue that the trial court erred in 

granting Kancor a declaratory judgment because the declarations included in the trial 

court’s judgment provided “no greater ramifications than the original suit,” making 

declaratory relief improper.32 See BHP Petroleum Co., Inc. v. Millard, 800 S.W.2d 

838, 842 (Tex. 1990). 

Generally, the plaintiff bears the burden to obtain affirmative answers to jury 

questions as to the necessary elements of its cause of action. United Scaffolding, 

Inc. v. Levine, 537 S.W.3d 463, 481 (Tex. 2017); Cho v. Kim, 572 S.W.3d 783, 798 

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.). The declaratory judgment 

awarded to Kancor defines Kancor’s rights under the Patriot-Kancor subcontract and 

thus clarifies Kancor’s claims arising under that subcontract that serve as the basis 

for its recovery pursuant to the mechanic’s and materialman’s lien. We hold that the 

trial court did not err in granting Kancor a declaratory judgment. 

We overrule Patriot’s and Travelers’ tenth issue. 

32 Kancor argues that Patriot and Travelers failed to preserve this complaint for 

appellate review because they did not specially except to Kancor’s claim for 

declaratory relief raised in Kancor’s pleadings or object to Kancor’s proposed jury 

questions on its declaratory-judgment claim submitted to the jury in the trial court’s 

charge. But Patriot’s and Travelers’ complaint is essentially that the jury’s answers 

to the declaratory-relief questions in the jury charge are immaterial, which is not the 

same as a jury-charge complaint. See Musallam v. Ali, 560 S.W.3d 636, 640 (Tex. 

2018). Thus, we disagree that Patriot and Travelers have failed to preserve their 

complaint for our review.
62

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Julie Countiss

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Countiss, Rivas-Molloy, and Guerra.